Single Issue Voting

submitted by risistill me from (self.WayOfTheBern)

Leftists are often accused of either needing to agree with a candidate on every issue or of being single issue voters. At bottom, this is another way of saying, "I reject the reason(s) you are giving me for refusing to vote for the candidate of my choice." Or even simply, "Just shut up and damn vote for the nominee of my party." So, this is not about paying attention to that noise.

I know that no candidate and I are likely to agree about every position. Heck, even my own mind changes on some issues.

If I believed that the well being of any loved one depended on a single issue, I would not hesitate to vote on the basis of that issue, even though I believe that to be a somewhat selfish view. I believe it's higher to vote for what is best for the most Americans. (Something about Spock's the many versus the few or the one.) However, I have never felt a need to vote on the basis of a single issue.

But this time, for the first time, I'm having considerable difficulty with a single issue with each of RFK, Jr. and Cornell West. IMO, I have an absolute right to vote on the basis of my conscience, but I am interested in the views of others.

In general, what are your thoughts about single issue voting when the well-being of a loved one is not at issue?

all 13 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]Orochiwe don't need no water let the mother[honk] burn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm all for it but the other dimensions in play matter, such as whether that issue is in striking distance of being achieved, and what the consequences are going to be for voting in a certain way.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

what the consequences are going to be for voting in a certain way

That one is easy: in the case of a US presidential election, the consequences for voting in any way are... nothing.

Until the vast majority of voters stop voting for the duopoly, voters aren't the ones making the choice.

That's not changing any time soon, and for it to ever have a chance of changing requires working outside of the electoral system.

And if anti-establishment candidates stopped either running within the duopoly and playing its game or making "lesser evilist" distinctions between red and blue, it wouldn't hurt either.

So as of right now, don't waste time playing 4D chess in a game you're not even playing. You can focus on voting your conscience. Might even use it to learn about yourself by what that self-analysis may reveal.

[–]Orochiwe don't need no water let the mother[honk] burn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The angel on my shoulder says vote Green like usual. The devil on my shoulder says vote Trump to marry the GOP to the orange man because screw the Republicans. It doesn't look like there are any meaningful political wins to be scored.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There hasn't been any meaningful political win to be scored in US presidential elections in a long time, that's the open secret. Whichever you choose, if any, will be the right one as long as you're fine with it, since it will only involve you anyway.

Change won't be coming through US presidential elections. "Anti-establishment" campaigns are only there to further discussion and try to get people to understand that they should join forces. The "win the election" ship has sailed and isn't coming back without some radical realignment of forces and approaches among regular people, which is what the establishment campaigns are designed to suppress.

[–]risistill me[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you.

All good points to consider whenever you vote, single issue or not.

[–]emorej 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All single issues are not created equal. High-ranking ones could include:

  1. Brandishing the threat of all-out nuclear war in order to avoid admitting the failure of financial shock and awe to win an otherwise unwinnable war that was purposefully sought for many years.

  2. Covering up outlawed research enabling production and leaking/testing of biological weapons, and then completing the transition of public health regulation into mainly a system for deadly and torturously harvesting of Big Pharma profits.

  3. Secretly institutionalizing the censorship (reinforced by blocking and seizing funding) of dissenting views and of inconvenient factual information on all politically sensitive issues.

[–]risistill me[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. As my OP suggested, voting for the benefit of most Americans, or even most of humanity, is the highest voting choice. When it comes to single issues, though, I think those tend to be whatever means most to you. For example, if a child of mine had an illness or condition that could be helped by stem cell research, I would not have voted to re-elect Bush the Lesser.

Doing that was not anything that I considered anyway. I was VBNMWW at the time. So, it's just an example.

On the higher level, I am anti-war, but which rules out a lot of politicians. They've gone from preaching peace while using the military to preaching "existential threat" while using the military.

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

I typically have three issues.

Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.

— Armaments 2:18-19

[–]risistill me[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. I think I've become addicted to your references. Not fair!

[–]Maniak🥃😾 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Not the framing I'd use. More like a two-pass system:

First pass: "these are the policies I care the most about, for whatever reasons, which candidates fit the bill the most?"

Second pass: "among those candidates, which also hold disqualifying positions, for whatever reasons?"

Any of those who remain, if any, would serve. If none remain, that's fine too. It's not as if electoralism was the answer to anything anyway.

So if you can find a candidate who fits what you want and doesn't hold positions that you find too repellent to vote for, go for it. The reasons why you decide "what you want" are your own and are irrelevant to the choice itself. Same with how you decide what's disqualifying.

Those who disagree with your personal choices as to what's important/to be rejected and want to shame you or pressure you to align with their personal choices can go fuck themselves, unless they actually have proper arguments and are willing to discuss like reasonable people, accepting disagreements. Which is rarely the case.

[–]risistill me[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you.

You and u/penelopepnortney made me realize I asked the wrong question. I wasn't looking at a field and trying to decided for whom to vote. I knew from the off that the only ones I might consider were RFK, Jr in the primary and West in the general. But, as I learned more about each of them, I soon began having real problems in a number of respects, but one in particular as to each of them. And, tbh, not voting was not my first preference.

[–]risistill me[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you

My hypothetical example of a single issue, even though I've never previously made a voting choice based on a single issue: https://saidit.net/s/WayOfTheBern/comments/bgtn/single_issue_voting/13yah

That I've never had to make a choice like that reminds me how blessed I've been.

There's always the option of not voting at all--the US version of "none of the above" and/or I have no faith in "teh system." But, I usually think that using my vote to say that I want something other than the uniparty is the best use I can make of it. I'm just having a harder time than usual with RFK and West. Even if Greens are controlled opposition--and I'm not sure that's so-- I wish Jill Stein were running again!

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For myself, I would distinguish between being a single-issue voter vs. there being positions a candidate holds that could be deal-breakers for me.